Posted on 04/13/2006 3:15:15 PM PDT by jmc1969
The only endorsement Rumsfeld needs is Bush's. And he's got that.
Effective for the long term security interests of this country. Frankly, I don't care about the political ramifications if we are doing the right thing. And we are. The Middle East is vital to our national security and the global economy. It has been a festering sore on the world body politic.
Removing Saddam and his two degenerate sons was a good thing for the region and the Iraqi people who were liberated. It has also helped remove Syria from Lebanon and the termination the nuclear program of Libya. We are also fighting some of the same people who took down the WTC on 9/11, bombed our embassies in East Africa, and attacked the USS Cole. i.e., AQ and bin Laden.
A country with no (at least accessible) WMDs, no defense, a shadow army, and a ragtag insurgents (mostly Iraqi deadeners, <10% foreigners) bogging down the greatest military machine on earth? At least Viet Nam had a real leader.
Bogging down the greatest military machine on earth??? You must be buying the MSM and Dem crap about what is happening in Iraq. First of all, we already won the war. Saddam and his miliary were defeated in May 2003. The country was liberated, has held three elections with up to 8.5 million voting braving death and injury, a constitution written, and a government in the process of being formed. This was all accomplished in three years. I guess you would be calling us bogged down in Germany and Japan in 1948.
So who are we fighting? A very small minority of the population of 25 million comprised of AQ, Baathists, criminals, and others. Estimates run from 10 to 30 thousand. They are incapable of carrying out any significant military unit activities, hold no territory, and have no viable political alternative or agenda save for anarchy. They rely on IEDs and suicide bombers to make sporadic terror attacks in a discrete, small area of the country. In sum, they represent absolutely no military threat to us or the Iraqi government.
We are also rebuilding the neglected infrasture of Iraq. More electricity is being generated now then before the war. Thousands of police and military have been trained and Iraqis are taking on more and more of the security responsibilities. We are winning the peace.
I served in Vietnam, including during the Tet Offensive. Iraq is not Vietnam by any stretch of the imagination. The only similarity is the distorted MSM portrayal of the war and some of the gullible American public who buy it. The only way we can lose in Iraq is the same way we lost in Vietnam, cut and run because the American public stopped supporting the war. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistake again.
In three years, we have lost 1862 personnel to hostile causes, or about 600 a year or 50 a month. Our casualties are trending downward over the past six months. If this nation cannot stomach this low level of casualties in pursuit of our national interests and to destroy the organization that attacked us killing over 3000 mostly Americans on our soil and who have declared war on us, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone superpower.
I know personally that many people in the armed services had no use for Clinton, but there was nothing like the unease that's being expressed now. The generals could have written books and Colin Powell was considering a run as POTUS. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there isn't a serious problem here.
Pure BS. The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Reenlistment rates are high overall and even higher in Iraq. Just because a very small minority of flag officers express dissatisfaction out of the thousands who now serve and who have retired, doesn't mean that the entire military has a sense of "unease." What do you base that on? Your "feelings?"
I'll take the word of a general who was actually commanding troops in battle in Iraq, over a civilian government whose personnel have no direct experience in warfare.
These generals have their own agenda, some of it having nothing to do with military matters. Wesley Clark wants to be president. Zinni wants to sell books. Kerry trotted out the flag officers who supported him at the Dem convention. Adm Crowe was appointed Ambsassador to the UK because he supported Clinton. Etcetera, etcetera, etc.
There are many more flag officers who support the President. Tommy Franks does and he actually commanded troops in battle in Iraq. If there is such a ground swell of military flag officers against Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, why have only five or six spoken out? FYI: Rumsfeld was a naval aviator. He also is the youngest and oldest SecDef in history.
Buck up man. Get a hold of yourself. Now is not the time to go wobbly.
The article doesn't go into beefs that it's screwed up over there. There is the broken record common complaint that we should have had more troops in Iraq after we invaded, which is old news that doesn't need to be rehashed. Other than that, their resentment seems to be rooted in the fact that Rummy is a civilian and they are resistant to change. That's fine, but again I think the way they've publicly complained is selfish, harmful to the war effort and our President and I resent it. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
if they held their convictions so strongly, they should have resigned and then spoken out, but they stayed as long as they could to inflate their retirement pay. There are plenty of principled retired military who quit rather than serve, or do the bidding for, Carter and Clinton. Read 'Marching On' by ret'd Army General Sumner.
Like Wesley Clark?
Yeah, even like Clark.
UCMJ, article 2, section (a): The following persons are subject to this chapter: subsection (4): Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
However, DoD directive 1352.1, outlines the ways retirees can be brought back into service and they cannot be brought back just to institute a court martial.
So they're only violating their own honor, not the letter of the law.
Then we shouldn't be there fighting. We weren't fighting an insurgency war in Japan and Germany years after the victory. Whatever sophistry we can sit here and spin, the country, who were 90% behind the POTUS several years ago, now have serious doubts... because they didn't think we'd be in this position. Blaming this all on the MSM isn't going to be a winning strategy in November. The president needs to address this head on. Scotty McClellan isn't going to do it..
A very small minority of the population of 25 million comprised of AQ, Baathists, criminals, and others. Estimates run from 10 to 30 thousand. They are incapable of carrying out any significant military unit activities, hold no territory, and have no viable political alternative or agenda save for anarchy.
If they are that small, we should leave. We've been training Iraqis (who certainly know how to fight - look at the casualties they inflicted on Iran in the 80s) for two years. They speak the language. They are of the culture. They need to take it over. And we need to get the foreign contractors out and have the Iraqis themselves rebuild their country.
If this nation cannot stomach this low level of casualties in pursuit of our national interests and to destroy the organization that attacked us killing over 3000 mostly Americans on our soil, and who have declared war on us, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone superpower.
We have fought several small countries in the last two decades, including a country armed to the teeth by Russia, and have had nowhere near these kinds of casualties. This isn't Russia, China or even Serbia. The person responsible for the 3000 deaths here is still on the loose reportedly somewhere in Pakistan. Many people have become understandably confused that "dead or alive" determination from the admin. appears to have fizzled.
Pure BS. The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Even stranger that there is an unprecendented number speaking out now, even from those recently commanding troops in Iraq. I respect the opinion of people who do the fighting, and I know many. The military does not have a bias against Repub presidents.
Buck up man. Get a hold of yourself. Now is not the time to go wobbly.
My going wobbly is of no import. The POTUS needs to stand up and reassure the public - and not through poor, wimpy Scott McClellan!
We were fighting the "werewolves" in Germany after the war. Japan was a different matter given their leadership and obedience of its people. Regardless, we are in Iraq because AQ has declared it the frontlines in their war against us. Iraq is part of the WOT. Who is blaming all of this on the MSM? The Dems have politicized the war. They seem to think that they will benefit by our defeat there. The steady drumbeat of bad news, i.e., the bombings, casualties. etc., without balancing it with the other side presents a distorted picture. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The MSM and Dems are using the same template.
Scotty McClellan isn't going to do it.
You could have Cicero or Clarence Darrow up there and you wouldn't convince the MSM to change their reporting. The WH press corps is overwhelming anti-Bush. Remember their frenzied coverage of the President's national guard records (including Rathergate) compared to their attempts to discredit the SBVFT. You are very naive to believe that a WH press spokesman is going to change the MSM coverage.
If they are that small, we should leave. We've been training Iraqis (who certainly know how to fight - look at the casualties they inflicted on Iran in the 80s) for two years. They speak the language. They are of the culture. They need to take it over. And we need to get the foreign contractors out and have the Iraqis themselves rebuild their country.
We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. They are taking over. Iraqi military and police have suffered more casualties than we have. What the hell are you talking about? You are spewing the same nonsense as the Dems. It has only been three years. What's the rush? Why don't you have any patience? Our troops understand this and want us to stay the course.
We have fought several small countries in the last two decades, including a country armed to the teeth by Russia, and have had nowhere near these kinds of casualties.
Are you referring to Bosnia and Kosovo? We fought that war at 15,000 feet. However, we are still there. Why aren't you calling for their immediate removal? The casualties in Iraq are light compared to any real historical measure.
This isn't Russia, China or even Serbia.
If it were China or Russia, our casualty rate would be much higher, especially if we tried to invade and occupy them. We didn't invade Serbia (Kosovo aside) with ground troops nor did we change their government and occupy their country.
The person responsible for the 3000 deaths here is still on the loose reportedly somewhere in Pakistan. Many people have become understandably confused that "dead or alive" determination from the admin. appears to have fizzled.
We are still in Afghanistan pursuing bin laden. We are also suffering casualties there. 284 Americans have died and 711 wounded in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and AQ. Using your logic, should we leave Afghanistan immediately? How long should we stay there?
Even stranger that there is an unprecendented number speaking out now, even from those recently commanding troops in Iraq. I respect the opinion of people who do the fighting, and I know many. The military does not have a bias against Repub presidents.
Unprecedented numbers? Compared to when? What are the numbers? You are making this stuff up out of whole cloth.
My going wobbly is of no import. The POTUS needs to stand up and reassure the public - and not through poor, wimpy Scott McClellan!
Of course he has stood up many times. Unfortuately, people like you refuse to believe him. You would rather believe the MSM, the Dem party, and a handful of disgruntled flag officers. The public wouldn't need reassurance if their weren't a MSM and Dem party distorting what is going on in Iraq. The President is being threatened with impeachment because he has the temerity to intercept AQ contacts with people inside the US. He has been accused by the Dems of torturing prisoners as a matter of official policy. The Dems tried to kill the renewal of the Patriot Act. You have Dem senators like Durbin comparing the US military to Pol Pot, the Nazis, and the Soviets. The attack on Rumsfeld is just another attack on Bush. I guess you sign on to the "Bush lied" crap as well.
Bush gave his unflinching support to Rumsfeld today. That is the way to stand up to the MSM and bankrupt Dem party.
This is unprecedented, and if we pretend it isn't, people here will have a rude awakening.
The people who supported Bush 4 years ago, ~ 90% of the country, are still here and are just as patriotic now as they were then. They weren't supporting Bush at the behest of the MSM then, and their concern isn't based on the MSM now - but the administration, including Rumsfeld, was giving folks the impression that this would be relatively quick, and that's not how it turned out. People can only take "victory is just around the corner" for so long. Second terms should be the time for a change
I saw Bush 4 years ago, sure, decisive and focussed. I'm not seeing that now, and it isn't because of the Dems - who are powerless and completely irrelevant, or the MSM. Bush could call a conference and take the generals' questions directly, live on TV.
This nagging doubt of the populace on the Iraq war is going to negatively impact everything, including the elections, and can only be remedied by the leader. If the leader doesn't take charge of the story, the media will do it for him.
But, if you're okay with the POTUS' approval below 40%, then I guess you see no problem...
Hi troll. How's Skinner?
Troll.
I heartily agree...but if you look at the details - that they are very, very few and rather than being a sampling, are selected for their opposition - and further recall that most of those complaining still dodge their having been clearly wrong (and misrepresent their previously stated positions)about the initial invasion being doable without several hundred thousand troops beyond what was used, their statements have a bit less credibility than they might.
That, by the way, was one of Bin Laden's key selling points for attacking us: That we were too decadent to defend ourselves, and that we would give up and go home.
Every loss matters on a personal level, but on a military level, our losses in Iraq are trivial - at its worst during the occupation, our military in Iraq had roughly the same mortality rate as being in your mid 40s. Recall that people were screaming about the quagmire in Afghanistan before the fires were out in the WTC, and we still haven't lost as many troops (including automobile accidents, heart attacks and other non-combat fatalities) as we lost in one morning of not dealing with the problem.
Not really...given that the Dems announced last year that they were pursuing a strategy of seeking these people out to both run for office, and to make periodic statements. Discontents (regardless of the validity of their reasons) are being actively recruited and put behind microphones.
I can't recall any, which makes one wonder why. Certainly, Les Aspin should have been a prime candidate. General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake.
The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation. Where were the generals?
As I stated earlier, we have had a politization of the military (and our diplomatic corps.) When was the first time you ever saw a parade of flag officers trotted out at a national convention nominating a President? When have you seen a petition signed by US career diplomats and flag officers urging Americans not to relect a President as was the case in 2004. Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change The answer is never until the Dems have pulled out all the stops to get back their power.
Kerry has called for the resignation of Rumsfeld repeatedly over the last several years. Biden wanted him fired. In May 2004 Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, demanded Rumsfeld's ouster "for the good of our country, the safety of our troops, and our image around the globe." If he does not resign forthwith, the president should fire him," Harkin said.
The top House Democrat indicated she, too, wanted Rumsfeld out. Asked if she thought Rumsfeld should quit, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., replied, "Yes, I do."
In a Thursday editorial [May 2004], the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called for Rumsfeld to resign over the "botched handling" of the investigation into the prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and over earlier Iraq war decisions. And, a column in The New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman called on President Bush to fire Rumsfeld "today, not tomorrow or next month."
It is painfully obvious that there has been an orchestrated campaign to get rid of Rumsfeld for years. I venture to say that Colin Powell has had a hand in some of this. It is also an attempt to get Bush.
This is unprecedented, and if we pretend it isn't, people here will have a rude awakening.
It is a very disturbing trend that threatens the integrity and non-partisan nature of our military and diplomatic corps. I attribute much of it to personal ambition and the lure of making money after leaving government service. The MSM has been hiring them as analysts. They are asked to write books. Political parties curry their support and then give them plum positions in government as part of the spoils system. Others go into the military industrial complex with high level management jobs or spots on boards of directors. Others go into politics to capitalize on their new found fame. In many instances, it is more lucrative to be a contrarian and naysayer against the establishment using your insider information to lend an air of legitimacy to your views.
I saw Bush 4 years ago, sure, decisive and focussed. I'm not seeing that now, and it isn't because of the Dems - who are powerless and completely irrelevant, or the MSM. Bush could call a conference and take the generals' questions directly, live on TV.
Now that would be dumb. It places the ex-generals on a par with the CIC. What is the point? What is to be gained? What kinds of questions would the generals ask and why should the President be subjected to them? What kind of precedent would that set?
This nagging doubt of the populace on the Iraq war is going to negatively impact everything, including the elections, and can only be remedied by the leader. If the leader doesn't take charge of the story, the media will do it for him.
There you go again. The President held a series of national addresses on the war in Iraq. He layed out the reasons for being there and our strategy for victory. The more defensive he gets, the weaker he appears. The MSM and the Dems will continue to distort and attack. It is foolish to believe that the President can remedy all of that via the MSM. Hell, Tony Blair can't do it and he is far more eloquent and persuasive.
But, if you're okay with the POTUS' approval below 40%, then I guess you see no problem...
Everyone, including the President, would love to see higher approval ratings. But I don't want to see him make decisions based on poll numbers. He must make his decisions based on what is right in the long term for this country. Let history be the final poll on whether his actions and decisions deserve our approval. It worked for HST.
Maybe the SoD should be replaced with the new term. Maybe things would go better if Rumsfeld left, if for no other reason than he has upset some portion of the military, and a new SoD would be a fresh start...
Good night!!
Someone already posted the quotes from one of these late critics above reversing himself.
The only way the people you know could have thought any such thing would be because they did not listen to the President. He repeatedly and invariably spoke of this being a long war which would take different forms than a typical war and with some actions of which we would not have any knowledge of for years.
Who could have seriously believed this would be short if they had even a slight knowledge of military affairs throughout history and the complexities of this particular political problem? Many of us spoke up here on FR and warned that this would not be over for years and troops will be in Iraq for decades in some force. This was NEVER a secret.
There have been remarkably few mistakes in fighting the war and none which are that significant given the norm. It has not helped by having the Treason Media underline any problem while deliberately ignoring all success. They have worked overtime to obscure the American people's understanding of what has occurred here. This has been consistently counted on by the Terrorists who have repeatedly cast their attacks so as to maximize American unhappiness knowing full well how the Treason Media would faithfully carry their message.
Critics are a dime a dozen and those who really care about National Security should make a habit of shooting down these false and destructive stories which the Treason Media loves to spread. Giving these liars ANY credence even by silence at ANY time does great damage to our National interests. It can not be stressed too often that you cannot believe ANY story it pushes which undermine the President. Just find the subtle twist of the truth which is at the essence of EVERY one of their word bombs.
Finally, you reveal your true colors. Your surprise and frustration are part of the burden you must bear as your fellow citizens are putting their lives on the line protecting your freedom. We live in a McInstant culture where problems are solved in a 30 or 60 minute TV show. You can microwave a prepared meal in minutes. Unfortunately, liberating a country, establishing a democratic government and instititutions, and defeating an insurgency take a little longer. It is this lack of patience and perseverance that our enemies are counting on to defeat us.
In his 1996 fatwa, entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" , bin Laden stated the following:
"If death is a predetermined must, then it is a shame to die cowardly." and the other poet saying: "Who do not die by the sword will die by other reason; many causes are there but one death". The crusader army became dust when we detonated al-Khobar. With courageous youth of Islam fearing no danger.
More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.
Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".
We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 manly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
I say to you William (Defence Secretary) that: These youths love death as you love life. They inherit dignity, pride, courage, generosity, truthfulness and sacrifice from father to father. They are most delivering and steadfast at war. They inherit these values from their ancestors...Our youths believe in paradise after death. They believe that taking part in fighting will not bring their day nearer; and staying behind will not postpone their day either.
The enemy we are fighting has a little more patience than you do and is willing to sacrifice more than you seem prepared to do. I only hope that people like you are in a distinct minority.
Maybe the SoD should be replaced with the new term. Maybe things would go better if Rumsfeld left, if for no other reason than he has upset some portion of the military, and a new SoD would be a fresh start...
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe things will get worse if Rumsfeld leaves. So in order to placate a few disgruntled generals and people like you, the President should replace the most experienced and capable SecDef we have ever had in the middle of a war that we are winning.
Using your rationale, maybe we should replace the President as well so we can have a "fresh start." His approval ratings are down, many in Congress are upset with him, including calling for censure and impeachment. All of this commotion about Rumsfeld is pure political partisanship as we head into the mid-terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.